Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[whelk]

Are these MLG meltdowns a regular Easter and Christmas thing? Feels like they are festival related. Just skimmed through thread and there seems a pattern although he seems to have stopped quoting Deuteronomy at least. 

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

You're missing the point. Again. 

You don't believe in something. That's cool. I respect that. 

Others believe in something that you don't believe in. You refuse to respect that. That's arrogant. You deem them "morons". That's arrogant. You expect others to justify their beliefs. That's arrogant. 

Just try to understand that you're not actually very important. That your personal beliefs are exactly that. That others can have different views. 

Live and let live you arrogant cunt. 

I refer you to my post above this one. You have taken my moron comment out of context, as it was used for one specific example.

Edited 21 March, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

 

The conflicting statements..

1) 100% kind and loving

2) Slave endoring and enabling

How can someone justify owning another human and think it would reduce the 100% kind and loving description to something below 100%?

As I said, go out and find somebody who does, and hold this discussion with them.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

As I said, go out and find somebody who does, and hold this discussion with them.

I'm intruiged as to what excuse wriggling they could use. Put yourself in their position and how would you justify thinking a slavery endorsing god remains 100% kind and loving.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I'm intruiged as to what excuse wriggling they could use. Put yourself in their position and how would you justify thinking a slavery endorsing god remains 100% kind and loving.

Jesus, now you want a debate by proxy. Pathetic. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I'm intruiged as to what excuse wriggling they could use. Put yourself in their position and how would you justify thinking a slavery endorsing god remains 100% kind and loving.

It would be much more interesting if you did so.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

It would be much more interesting if you did so.

I have and I can't. I see no way you can justify endorsing and enabling slavery with being 100% kind and loving. You appeared to think there was a way. So can you do it?

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Jesus, now you want a debate by proxy. Pathetic. 

I wasn't the one who thought it possible to see no conflict between 100% kind and loving and endorsing/enabling slavery.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I have and I can't. I see no way you can justify endorsing and enabling slavery with being 100% kind and loving. You appeared to think there was a way. So can you do it?

Where did I say that ?

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Where did I say that ?

I didn't say you took that viewpoint. But by not thinking such a viewpoint is moronic, it at least suggests you think someone could take up a position against it even if you wouldn't agree with them either.

Edited 21 March, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

In all these years you haven't got close to laying a hit on me and you forget/distort/twist/lie about and re-run all you misses like a delusional Darth Vader! 😉

I never had to pretend I’d made a typo on a post to cover my embarrassment 🤣🤣🤣🤣  

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I didn't say you took that viewpoint. But by not thinking such a viewpoint is moronic, it at least suggests you think someone could take up a position against it even if you wouldn't agree with them either.

No. My position is that I am not arrogant enough to disparage somebody who holds an opinion based on faith, one which I myself do not hold, as a moron.

Edited 21 March, 2021 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I never had to pretend I’d made a typo on a post to cover my embarrassment 🤣🤣🤣🤣  

Clearly you never make mistakes when typing...

[Matthew Le God]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No. My position is that I am not arrogant enough to disparage somebody who holds an opinion based on faith, one which I myself do not hold, as a moron.

My 'moronic' claim was not about anything other than the two statements of '100% kind and loving' and 'endorsing/enabling slavery' being in conflict with each other. It was not about any other aspects of religion apart from that. You keep overlooking this.

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Clearly you never make mistakes when typing...

You didn’t. You fucked up then pretended it was a typo. If it was a typo you’d have had to get 3 out of 4 letters or numbers wrong. You fucked up and then lied to try and save your blushes. Everyone know it too 🤣🤣

[egg]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

I wasn't the one who thought it possible to see no conflict between 100% kind and loving and endorsing/enabling slavery.

But you're the one asking someone to have a debate on behalf of a person unknown. Now that is moronic. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

My 'moronic' claim was not about anything other than the two statements of '100% kind and loving' and 'endorsing/enabling slavery' being in conflict with each other. It was not about any other aspects of religion apart from that. You keep overlooking this.

A God who is 'loving and giving' towards his followers might well endorse the enslavement of those who aren't.

Just a thought, and putting an opinion that somebody might hold.

Edited 21 March, 2021 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

A God who is 'loving and giving' towards his followers might well endorse the enslavement of those who aren't.

Just a thought, and putting an opinion that somebody might hold.

That isn't a 100% kind and loving god then. 

[Matthew Le God]

31 minutes ago, egg said:

But you're the one asking someone to have a debate on behalf of a person unknown. Now that is moronic. 

No it isn't. As I've already explained, he was suggesting although he may not hold the view he could imagine someone could take an opposing view to it, I couldn't see how it could be justified so I asked him to explain it.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That isn't a 100% kind and loving god then. 

He only cares about His followers, to them that's 100%. Isn't that the whole point of the "Wrath of God" ?

 

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

He only cares about His followers, to them that's 100%. Isn't that the whole point of the "Wrath of God" ?

He is a bit of a thug then. Not very Church of England with quaint church summer fates and strawberry jam is it!? 😁

Edited 21 March, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No it isn't. As I've already explained, he was suggesting although he may not hold the view he could imagine someone could take an opposing view to it, I couldn't see how it could be justified so I asked him to explain it.

Yeah, you asked him to explain someone to elses view. Stupid thing to do. 

Nobody can ever express the opinion of someone they don't know. Hope that helps. 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, egg said:

Yeah, you asked him to explain someone to elses view. Stupid thing to do. 

Nobody can ever express the opinion of someone they don't know. Hope that helps. 

Nonsense. He suggested it was possible for someone to take an opposing view, it is not unreasonable for him to be able to express what he thinks that view might be even if he doesn't agree with it. Bizarre you think people can't imagine other perspectives as it is what humans learn as toddlers.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Nonsense. He suggested it was possible for someone to take an opposing view, it is not unreasonable for him to be able to express what he thinks that view might be even if he doesn't agree with it. Bizarre you think people can't imagine other perspectives as it is what humans learn as toddlers.

Your view is that only your view is correct. You dismiss every other view. So ask yourself why anyone who has no belief, would then waste his time putting himself into the mind of someone who has a belief, and then waste more time telling you. 

 

 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Your view is that only your view is correct.

Why would anyone hold a view they did not believe to be correct? 🤔

[badgerx16]

37 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

He is a bit of a thug then. Not very Church of England with quaint church summer fates and strawberry jam is it!? 😁

Probably more Jesuit Catholicism under the Inquisition. Same God, same Bible, different perspective.

Edited 21 March, 2021 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

TBF most C of E Christians are lovely, they’re hardly religious at all.

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why would anyone hold a view they did not believe to be correct? 🤔

You make my point...you invited a view but concede that only your view is correct. Debate with an opinionated person is futile, as these 56 pages demonstrate. 

[Matthew Le God]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

You make my point...you invited a view but concede that only your view is correct. Debate with an opinionated person is futile, as these 56 pages demonstrate. 

I am more than happy to change my view based on evidence.

I don't hold views based on no evidence.

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Don't you?

Faith is not a reliable path to truth as it is possible to hold a view on anything, even opposing contradictory views and say you hold them on faith. Thus it is not reliable path to truth.

There is a significant difference between saying I don't believe your god has met his burden of proof and saying your god does not exist. The former does not mean you believe the latter.

 

Edited 21 March, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

Happy Easter everyone. Hope you enjoyed your extended weekend. 😀

[Lighthouse]

And on the third day he arose from his tomb and said unto his disciples, "I want some f**king Mini Eggs you c**t!"

[whelk]

I am fearing the moon is going to play havoc with MLG’s mind and his spiritual quest leading to him all excitable again and banging on about his obsessions - homosexuality and slavery.

[Matthew Le God]

Happy Ishtar @whelk @Turkish

Predates Christianity by 4,000 years. Christians pinched it and infringed its copyright. 😉

If modern day magicians can con people, what could someone do 2,000 years ago...?

Edited 3 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

7 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Happy Ishtar @whelk @Turkish

Predates Christianity by 4,000 years. Christians pinched it and infringed its copyright. 😉

If modern day magicians can con people, what could someone do 2,000 years ago...?

Interesting that you’ve chosen to bring up a festival based on sex when everything points to you being a virgin 

[Lighthouse]

16 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Interesting that you’ve chosen to bring up a festival based on sex when everything points to you being a virgin 

TBH the way you two go on about it, I’d swear you’d been sh*gging each other at some point.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

TBH the way you two go on about it, I’d swear you’d been sh*gging each other at some point.

That’s quite funny for you. I’ve often given MLG a good seeing to, but only on Internet forums.

[Matthew Le God]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

TBH the way you two go on about it, I’d swear you’d been sh*gging each other at some point.

 

@Turkish We've been rumbled! 

Edited 3 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[whelk]

Just caught some of the Easter service on BBC. This archbishop fellow seems clueless - talking about compassion and kindness. He hasn’t mentioned about making people slaves or about killing homosexuals. Lord knows how he got to this senior position having no understanding of Christianity.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by whelk

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Just caught some of the Easter service on BBC. This archbishop fellow seems clueless - talking about compassion and kindness. He hasn’t mentioned about making people slaves or about killing homosexuals. Lord knows how he got to this senior position having no understanding of Christianity.

Presumably he skipped over genocide ?

[Lighthouse]

Happy Easter Saints fans.

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Happy Easter Saints fans.

Another genocidal episode ? Practiced with an asteroid, decided a flood would be less messy next time around ?

[Matthew Le God]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

Just caught some of the Easter service on BBC. This archbishop fellow seems clueless - talking about compassion and kindness. He hasn’t mentioned about making people slaves or about killing homosexuals. Lord knows how he got to this senior position having no understanding of Christianity.

Not sure how this helps you. Hardly a surprise that a CoE archbishop conveniently ignores the nasty bits of the book and rewrites the good bits to appeal to Church of England followers.

CoE archbishop cherry picking shocker!

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

18 hours ago, Turkish said:

Interesting that you’ve chosen to bring up a festival based on sex when everything points to you being a virgin 

Are you incapable of posting without attempts at petty, personal and inaccurate insults? 🙄

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Not sure how this helps you. Hardly a surprise that a CoE archbishop conveniently ignores the nasty bits of the book and rewrites the good bits to appeal to Church of England followers.

CoE archbishop cherry picking shocker!

Thought it might help you that you might thinking that you are in overwhelming majority of not really understanding you might one day realise you are the stupid one. Bit of conspiracy theory cultist I doubt it very much doubt that you will reach this enlightenment. 

[Matthew Le God]

31 minutes ago, whelk said:

1) Thought it might help you that you might thinking that you are in overwhelming majority of not really understanding you might one day realise you are the stupid one. Bit of 2) conspiracy theory cultist I doubt it very much doubt that you will reach this enlightenment. 

1) Your first sentence makes no sense what so ever as a reply to my post. I was pointing out to you that the archbishop was cherry picking from the scripture and leaving out the horrendous parts.

2) Name a conspiracy theory you think I believe in.

[CB Fry]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Your first sentence makes no sense what so ever as a reply to my post. I was pointing out to you that the archbishop was cherry picking from the scripture and leaving out the horrendous parts.

2) Name a conspiracy theory you think I believe in.

Don't you cherry pick all the bollocks about genocide?

And you cherry pick all the bits of Christmas you want to celebrate because we all know you have never ever expressed any of these views about "all Christians support genocide" to any actual real human beings around your Christmas table. Just type it out on here.

Because you celebrate Christmas (and Easter) just like the rest of us.

Cherry pick chery pick cherry pick.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by CB Fry

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Don't you cherry pick all the bollocks about genocide?

That is completely and utterly flawed. So what if I find the bad bits, you have failed to see it in the context it is done for. When I've talked about God of the Bible committing genocide, supporting slavery, sexism etc, that is to show that the claim made by many Christians that God is 100% good. 

All it requires is to find even one evil thing God has done to show he is not 100% kind and loving. It is very easy to find many things from the scripture to show it is not 100%.

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

And you cherry pick all the bits of Christmas you want to celebrate because we all know you have never ever expressed any of these views about "all Christians support genocide" to any actual real human beings around your Christmas table. Just type it out on here.

I've never said 'all Christians support genocide'. But to a degree they do, they choose to bend over backwards trying to make excuses how a global flood isn't genocide. Or that killing the first born Egyptian babies is not evil etc etc.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is completely and utterly flawed. So what if I find the bad bits, you have failed to see it in the context it is done for. When I've talked about God of the Bible committing genocide, supporting slavery, sexism etc, that is to show that the claim made by many Christians that God is 100% good. 

All it requires is to find even one evil thing God has done to show he is not 100% kind and loving. It is very easy to find many things from the scripture to show it is not 100%.

Why don't you take it up with Archbishop Welby ? It's all well and good spouting your bollocks on here, but I bet you'ld never dare confront a 'believer', ( Christian, Muslim, or Jewish ), face to face and try to convince them that following the Abrahamic tradition is misguided and based on falsehoods and deceit.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Because you celebrate Christmas (and Easter) just like the rest if us.

They are based on festivals that pre-date Christianity. 

It is not 'just like' if there is no religious element involved. Giving presents is not exclusive to Christians, eating chocolate is not exclusive to Christians.

The duck rape thread is going around in circles again! 😉😁